Talk:Authorization Policy Vote

Bylaws vs Policies

Kyle Bieneman from the mailing list:

I fully support revising the policy to make it more flexible and adaptable to varying needs. However, I have a basic threshold question, since we seem to sometimes play fast-and-loose with terminology:

What is a "policy" in a PS1 context? I see that we have at least one policy (the Conflict of Interest Policy) as part of our bylaws. Is that what we intend this policy to be as well, an amendment to the bylaws? If so, easy enough, though we should bear in mind that to make any exception to the policy, we'll need a 2-week lead time to propose a vote. If this, or any other policy, is something other than a bylaw, what differentiates it from a bylaw?

Anyway, those are my thoughts/questions.

Best,

Kyle

Bioguy from the mailing list:

Kyle and all:

I also feel "bylaw" and "policy" are ambiguous as currently documented. On an ongoing basis I am doing a bylaw review to address issues like these. My goal is to clarify the differences between these two terms, make the bylaws a bit more high level and policies more low level and detailed. I'm sorry for the brevity but I am on a work site, but if anyone has any questions please feel free to private message. - Bioguy

Ryan Pierce from the mailing list:

We should take this discussion to the Wiki discussion page. I'm not in a place where I can easily do this.

Bylaws are supposed to define how an organization works at a high level. They aren't supposed to address day to day operations. So amending the Bylaws ideally should be a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency situation. Policies should be created and amended more frequently as the organization's needs change.

A lot of things that should be policies are or were in the Bylaws. Over the years, people have been removing things from the Bylaws and making them policies. Area Hosts are a good example.

Use of tools and authorizations never was in the Bylaws, nor should it be, so this is being proposed as a policy.

For a list of PS:One policies, see https://wiki.pumpingstationone.org/Category:Policy

Kyle's follow-up:

This obviously goes somewhat beyond the scope of this particular vote, so I won't belabor the point, but as a general comment, while the above explanations tell me about how the group would like to categorize the rules, it doesn't tell me anything about how the rules interact with each other in a legal sense. If a policy conflicts with the bylaws, do the bylaws supersede? If we want bylaws to be changed less often, and policies more often, is there anything in our rules which promotes that? Again, this is a fight for another day, but I'd just like to plant the seed here. If we want to create a distinction between "Policies" and "Bylaws," that distinction is only really meaningful if it the two are actually legally different in some way (such as: votes for policies have a lower quorum requirement, votes to change bylaws require a supermajority, etc.). Otherwise, all we've really done is arbitrarily chopped up our bylaws onto different pages based on how "big" we think the rules are.

Ambiguity - Authority of Board vs. Area Hosts

Kyle Bieneman from the mailing list:

Assuming the intention is to incorporate this into the bylaws, my two suggestions on language are:

Reduce ambiguity regarding relative authority of the board vs. the area hosts. In several places "The Board of Directors or an Area Host" are given authority to do certain things under the policy. What happens if they disagree? (Say the Board wants to require certification for a given tool, but the Area Host thinks that's unnecessary.) I'd rather give authority to one or the other by default. Either the Area Host (with the Board as back-up if the Area Host position is vacant or if the Host declines to make a ruling), or the Board (which could obviously ask the Area Host for advice).

I considered this when drafting the policy. Ultimately, I had concerns about how long the policy was becoming, so I wanted to simplify this as much as possible.

What I would like to happen: The Area Hosts are the "boots on the ground." They should be the people making decisions for their areas. The Board would need to step in only when:

• The Area Host can't do it. (On vacation, vacancy in the position, etc.)
• An issue spans multiple areas. (E.g. an extreme circumstance where a member should have their authorizations revoked on all tools.)
• The Board feels a need to override the Area Host's judgment. Ideally, issues would be resolved between the Board and the Area Host, but at the end of the day, the Board should make the final call.

Under the draft policy, it's technically possible for the Board to overrule an Area Host, and the Area Host overrules the Board, and the Board overrules the Area Host, etc. But practically, this would be a stupid move for the Area Host because the Board would likely remove the Area Host from office. I felt this situation was unlikely enough that it wasn't worth complicating the policy by setting up a more complicated decision making structure with escalation. I'm interested in hearing opinions on whether this is the right call. --Rdpierce (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2015 (CST)

Ambiguity - Constraining authority for granting exceptions

Kyle Bieneman from the mailing list:

I would not constrain the Board/Area Host's authority to grant exceptions. The policy as written is so broad as not to be a meaningful restraint (virtually anything could be deemed "events that provide benefit to Pumping Station: One"), but formally writing a list of accepted situations where exceptions can be granted will simply provoke arguments down the line about whether the Board has authority to grant an exception in a given situation.

I agree that the powers granted are extremely broad. But I believe keeping them is helpful because it encodes the intent of the policy within the policy itself. Five years from now, people may not remember *why* a given policy was written in a particular way. If the policy carries no constraints, a well-meaning Area Host could reasonably conclude that there isn't anything wrong with letting their non-member buddy spend an evening using our laser cutter. A well-meaning Area Host probably wouldn't grossly stretch definitions to allow this same situation with the policy as written. --Rdpierce (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2015 (CST)